REACT: Slavery apology

Having just issued a personal apology, I am familiar with the subject. This brings to mind the question of slavery and the call for apologies and even reparations – a euphemism for cold cash. Certainly there are situations where apologies are due, and even some compensation for the wrong – like “I’m sorry I backed into you car, here is my insurance agent.”

The problem with the slavery demand is that it does not meet any test of legitimacy. They are nothing more than a pandering to political correctness to shake down the taxpayers for some money.

Here are my rules for apologies. They should come from the person, or persons, who committed the wrong. Whoa! Now that is a revolutionary concept, don’t you think? Since when do people who committed no wrong have a requirement to apologize for anything?

Personally, I do not own any slaves … never have. The fact that my then 5-year-old daughter told neighbors that her adopted black older sister was our slave does not count – even though she did baby sit, wash dishes and take out the garbage on occasion. You can see from the accompanying photograph (including her adopted son, who now serves in Iraq), Yvette appears very happy despite the years of household chores.

As I mentally searched my family history to uncover some connection to slavery that might suggest some complicity in the past sins of indentured servitude, I realized that my ancestors were not in American when the hideous institution was in effect. They were growing grapes and making wine in a country that never had slavery.

Since this is the experience of most Americans, the notion of a national apology seems to be a stretch at best.

If there is any meaning to ensnaring long past institutions and groups into the slavery apology business, I think we have to be specific. As a mostly Republican type, my political ancestors in America were the abolitionist. They fought and died to end slavery. Democrats, on the other hand, were fighting to preserve human ownership. If the past matters so much, then why aren't the apology proponents call for a mass exedous of blacks from the Dem party? Shouldn't there be reparations for the the more recent segregation, Jim Crow laws and the lynchings that were a coomon part of the Democrat party agenda in the Republicanless "old south." This makes me think that if anyone is obligated to apologize, it is only the donkey butts who bear an apparent burden of guilt. Some of them (i.e. ex- KKKer Senator Robert Byrd) are still alive and can reasonably apologize for thier personal sins.

Now some activists think that commercial enterprises that had “ties to slavery” in the past … the waaaaaaaaaay long ago past … should apologize, pay reparations and even be denied government contracts. This suggests that it was not people who were responsible, but the corporate entity. In a funny sort of way, by transferring culpability to contemporary company officers, you are absolving the guys who really were culpable. This would be like holding some 22^nd Century Enron executives responsible for today’s debacle and scandal. I mean, what if the company passed hands because of a hostile take-over? The new guys now have to make amends for the old guard who fought against them. If we apply this reasoning to criminal justice, maybe we should hang Mussolini’s grandkids.

One argument raised by the slavery apologists is the ongoing negative impact of slavery. Any modern day suffering under racial prejudice should be compensated. Somehow, we are supposed to know what damage accrued to an individual because their great, great, great, great grandpa was horribly snatched from his village in Angola. In reality, there is no way to know the value of the outcome. Martin Luther King may have been a starving kid in the dry plans of Ethiopia had it not been for slavery. Even my Africa-to-Jamaica-to-America daughter might never have been part of my family. I think that would have been a loss for all of us. Just because many outcomes stem from an awful act does not make the outcome bad.

Any current prejudice can be addressed appropriately. If someone denies a black person their basic civil right, like renting an apartment, THEN there is a need to apologize and perhaps provide some monetary compensation. In this case, you have a real live perpetrator and a real live victim. You also have laws and courts and real evidence.

I bear no prejudice, and have proudly raised a bunch of kids without prejudice in their hearts. Consequently, I feel no compunction to atone. I am not guilty … not sorry for my conduct … not sorry for my ancestor’s behavior. I do not believe that there is a black person alive today who is due a nickel in reparation for the most surely wrongful suffering of ancestors he or she cannot even trace. In a true apology, don’t you have to recognize your wrongdoing? Feel guilty?

Okay, there are exceptions … like when my mother made me apologize to the kid down the block for hitting him. I gave a barely audible “I’m sorry” without sincere conviction. He deserved it. However, it was not as if I was being forced to apologize for my great grandfather whacking some neighbor kid. How ridiculous is that?

The idea of offering an apologia for slavery at this date is so absurd, so twisted and so disingenuous that it can only be explained as yet another example of politically correct liberal thinking.

REPLY TO DAN: Mea Culpa

I hate apologies, especially when I have to make them. In my haste to scribe a response to Dan between phone calls and pit stops, I blew it. Now, I could have just pulled down my errant item and reworked it more correctly, but that does not seem fair. So, I must bleed in public. Well, at least “in public” as far as anyone, besides Dan, reads my blog.

So Dan, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I am beating my breast (gently) with my fist as I was taught to do in Catholic elementary school.

I should not have cast Dan into the legions of the left. He may be a person like me, unwelcome at any end of the political table for the sin of apostasy. He refers to leaning Republican nationally and Democrat locally. I do not lean by geography, but simply find the Republicans, on balance, more likely to promote my causes. But I do not embrace all Republicans out of a sense of partisan loyalty. Philosophy trumps partisanship.

Where Dan and I do seem to have strong agreement is our evaluation of the Illinois/Chicago GOP. After the 1995 election, when I was personally ill-served by but local elephant herders, I was quoted (accurately, by the way) in the Chicago Tribune as saying something to the effect that one cannot begin to imagine just how dysfunctional the Chicago/Cook County GOP is until you see it from the inside. It is pathetic.

Dan has taught me a lesson. In the future, I will be more careful with my name-calling, reserving it for dyed-in-the-wool leftist lunatics.

REACT: The minimum wage fraud

Nothing sounds better than to increase a person’s wages, especially those who subsist at the lower rungs of the economic scale. If you are among those who think the Democrats unrelenting mantra of minimum wage is such a great idea, consider this. Why not legislate to raise all wages. That’s it! We will just rule that everyone in the nation will get a 100 percent pay raise. Think of all the good that will come of doubling the salary of every American.

Now, if you know anything about economics, you know that such a regulatory move by the government is a really bad idea. It would wreck the economy. It is toxic. So, what is so good about a little bit of monetary poison in the form of a minimum wage?

For sure, many employees will enjoy the benefits of the minimum wage, but not nearly as many as one might think. First of all, the vast majority of workers already exceed the minimum wage. Many other workers are part timers or contract workers, and not subject to minimum wage considerations. It does not apply to the legions of self-employed. Of course, it does not apply to the unemployed.

Oh! Speaking of the unemployed. Every increase in the minimum wage has created more unemployed as employers offset the payroll increase with job cuts in order to keep a fairly constant overhead. In labor circles, this is known as “benefiting the survivors.”

The other untoward outcome of a minimum wage increase is the accompanying increase in the cost of goods and services. We are already crying in our fried rice over the low wage advantage of Asia, and our new Democrat national policy is to exacerbate that situation by making domestic goods and services more expensive.

If you wonder why the Democrats would embrace a policy that would throw low-income people out of jobs, think cynically. I often point out that a party that relies on the poor and the unemployed as their power base are going to make more people poor and unemployed. The minimum wage issue, bad as it is for the economy, is great politically for the party that derives its power from pandering to the poor.

REACT: Response from the left

I take Umbrage at a recent comment by “Dan” about me in www.moveonandshutup.org. Actually, I am too congenial to really take umbrage, but I do love the word. Take umbrage. Nice.

Before I respond to Dan in substance, I have to say that any organization that starts dialogue under the banner “move on and shut up” may not be the best form for intelligent discussion. Happily, to use the expression, their bark is worse than their bite. Despite the doff of the cap to sensationalism, they operate well within the bounds of civil discord. The fact that their views are almost always wrong does not take away from the reasonable way they display their angst. These are the type of folks you could have over for dinner and enjoy what the late Sun-Times columnist and TV talk show host, Irv Kucinet, used to call “the lively art of conversation.” They may be on the inner edge of the fringe (we must be precise in our placement of people, eh?), but they are not a bunch of morons.

Which brings me to my point.

Writing on MoveOn …etc., Dan said, “I think it's fair to call the wingnut elements of the right wing a bunch of morons. Larry doesn't.” Actually, I thought that was exactly the point of my written comments. I am a critic of what I call the strident right – which I personally prefer over the word “moron.” I suggest that it is the left that is recultanct to call out the extremists on the radical left.

How so?

The right tends to boot out corrupt officials. The left re-elects them. The Right tends to repudiate those with extremist so-called right wing views. Skin heads and David Duke. The left gives homage to their extremeists. Cindy Sheehan et al.

Libeals believe that right field extends only five feet from the foul line and left field consumes the remainder of the outfield. For them, the moderation of center field is well into left field territory.

Therefore, I want to both correct and challenge Dan. I do very much disdain the politics of stridency and extremism, but reject the notion that solid philosophic belief or aggressive debate is equivalent to extremism. My challenge is to hear Dan cite the examples of left wingnut policies and personalities he would call moronic. And if Cindy Sheehan is not on his list, he is being duplicitous.

I do agree with Dan on the practical side of the gay rights issue. It is a loser for the GOP. One only has to see what happened to the donkey party in the 1970s, when they became the party of narrow special interests of the past. They spent the next 30 years sliding into second party status. Whether this last election is a turn around or an anomaly is yet to be seen. However, with the GOP starting to congeal into a party of special interests and the defenders of the old culture, the lesson offered by the Dems should not be overlooked.

REACT: Response from the strident right

As predicted, some of my most strident conservative “friends” have taken abusive exception to my opinion on gay rights and flag burning.

Taking up the latter first, some right-wingers call me a “traitor” to America for not protecting the flag. (Incidentally, I have one conservative adversary who calls me … and everyone … a traitor for merely deviating from HIS personal interpretation of conservatism. He is the part of the fringe that would scare me if he were in power – sort of the Hitler-lite type.) Anyway, for those of you who disagree with me on the flag issue … amen … that’s what’s great about America. Those of you who raise the disagreement to the level of hateful accusations, I say … ah … hmmmm … okay … time for polite rhetoric. You’re … ah … WRONG! You see, while you only protect the fabric, I protect a noble history of freedom for which it stands --- or at least is supposed to stand. The very reason the flag guardians need a Constitutional Amendment to “protect” the flag is that the very notion is UNconstitutional. It violates that all-important First Amendment – our freedom of speech. So… dear conservatives … which is it? A new controversial authoritarian amendment for the evolving police state OR our right of free speech. How can any true conservative be suckered into this flag protection garbage?

Now on the matter of gay rights. What is the problem here? We live in a society that has accepted gay life as a legitimate part of it. My son attends a Catholic school where one kid has two mothers and another has two fathers --- and no one, including the Church administrators seems to have a problem with it. Whatever you think of gayness … sin or sickness … you cannot deny basic human and cultural rights, and civic equality. Also, I think there is a good chance that, as God’s children, gayness may well have been part of His intended plan of creation. Wow! Now there’s a thought. There is a third option besides sin or sickness. My stand is based on my desire to maintain a consistent conservative philosophy as best I can see it. As a spiritual person, I am not about to judge my fellow man --- even those wearing dresses. (Okay, I may judge their fashion sense, but that’s it.) This is what the bible admonishes me to do. Judge not.

So, in matters of flags, I am a strict constitutionalist and First Amendment defender. In matters of fags, I am an adherent of the bible, and least the judge not portion. How much more conservative can I be?

REACT: Cindy Sheehan in Cuba

I see where the shameless and irrelevant Cindy Sheehan has popped up in Cuba as her latest anti-American booking. The only thing that I can see she has proven is the the concept of treason is no longer valid. How ironic it is that she opposes a country that grants her total freedom to be an unprincipled traiter, and favors those who would have summarily exeucuted her for even nominal opposition. Oh well! I like her new name, which has not been widely reported -- the war whore. It really not very nice, but it resonates.

OP ED: Being a conservative ain't easy

Being a conservative is not easy … never has been. I am not referring to the drubbing of the GOP and the ascent of the strident left-wing leadership in the Congress in last year’s election. I am not referring to the unabated conservative bashing by the national press cabal.

I AM referring the idiocy in the ranks of the right. Cases in point:

1. Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) goes bonkers because Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, prefers to be sworn in with his hand on a Koran rather than a Christian bible. This is a no brainier. As a conservative who believes in individual rights, I could care less if a congressman-elect want to be sworn in on his college term paper. We have too many examples of official malfeasance to believe that the bible or the oath produces moral legislators. I also believe that by laying his hand on his own religious text, it has more meaning. To make him swear on a book outside his belief nullifies the implication of the oath. It is a fraud. So, how can we be a conservative if we do not respect the individual right of a Muslim congressman? Though I am not likely to agree with the new Muslim legislator, I think it says a lot about America that we can elect a Muslim to high office in an atmosphere that would just as easily promote prejudice and intolerance. Please delete the very bad Virgil Goode from the register of bonafide conservatives.

FOOTNOTE: It was decided that Congressman-elect Ellison will be allowed to swear in on a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson. It will be walked over from the vault of the Library of Congress for the ceremony. Oddly, I AM bothered by taking a national treasure from safekeeping for the indulgence of a freshman legislator. He should certain be allowed to swear on the Koran, but let him bring his own dang copy. This has all the earmarks of a public relations stunt drummed up by the new House leadership.

2. Then there is Pat Robertson. I have a great regard for religion and the religious. However, I am not compelled to believe that everyone who has “reverend” in front of his or her name is automatically a pious theologian. If you have read my blog, you know that I think the REVEREND Jesse Jackson is a Machiavellian, power-hungry, racist grandstander. My feeling towards the REVEREND Pat Robertson is not so precise. I just think he is an egomaniacal nut case. In his latest idiocy, he claims that God has told him (apparently God talks to him a lot) that there will be a major terrorist attack on the United States late in 2007. Duh! If I wanted to play fortuneteller, that is one prediction I would make. Of course, Robertson admits that he has been wrong in the past. However, he does not explain how the infallible God gives him the wrong info. In one instance, he claims God told him that a devastating tsunami would hit the United States in 2006. First, we do not get tsunamis. That is an eastern hemisphere phenomenon. We get tidal waves. I would think God would know the correct term for his vehicles of wrath. Tsunami? Tidal wave? No matter. The prediction was a wash out. Robertson notes a bit of flooding in New England as a “partial” fulfillment of his prophecy. So… if some time in 2007 a small grenade goes off in front of a Wal-Mart in the middle of the night, THAT would be a “partial” fulfillment of Robertson’s God-given warning. His prediction skills are on the level of newspaper horoscopes … interpretation is everything. So, here is my dilemma. Either God is not infallible, or Robertson is delusional. Please excommunicate Robertson from the role of the righteous right.

3. As a conservative in a multi-theological nation, I think we have to separate religious beliefs from conservative principles when the two come into conflict. Gay rights. It is certainly permissible for any religious group to define sin for their voluntary membership. However, no self-respecting conservative is going to deny basic civil rights of individual freedom to any group. I think gays should be allowed civil unions (leaving “marriage” to the religions to perform or deny). All marriages in America are civil unions, protected by a body of law. It is just that some of those civil unions are sanctified as marriages by the religious community. I say, let adult human couples decide who they want to partner with in a civil union, and let the churches decide who they will bless with a religious rite. If we were as tolerant as good conservatives should be, we would not find it so remarkable that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter, and we would not find it incomprehensible that she loves and supports her father. So … please kick the pain-in-the-ass homophobic gay bashers out of the conservative closet.

4. I think burning a flag or two is one of those “inalienable” rights the conservative founders had in mind. It is a form of protest that is currently protected under the all-important First Amendment. That is why the fascist conservatives need to amend the Constitution to make it illegal. It is a bad, un-conservative concept dragged into the public spotlight by the nationalist element of the body politic. I am a flag waver, but the flag I wave in pride can be flown upside down to indicate distress, warn as a bikini as a means of avoiding indecent exposure, and burned to ashes in peaceful revolt – the kind Thomas Jefferson so well understood. Our constitutional government has survived quite will with an occasional burning of Betsy Ross’s needlecraft. So … let the flame of freedom drive the nationalists from the conservative campground.

Some may say that my desire to cast the philosophic heretics out of the conservative movement will destroy the coalition that provides the core power base. I prefer to think of all the people who would join our ranks if it were not for the lunatics who too often characterize … nay … mischaracterize our cause.

EULOGY: The Jerry Ford I knew.

President Gerald Ford is laid to rest. The nation remembers his reputation for fairness and decency. His sense of being a common man was reflected in his favorite self-effacing retort, “I’m a Ford, not a Lincoln.” In reality, he was more like America’s justifiably most revered President than Ford would admit, or even believe.

Both were men whose road to the Presidency was most improbable. Though Lincoln was elected, his victory required such a convergence of unlikely events that no Victorian odds-maker would have bet on his early potential. Ford’s ascent was astonishing. He was the first, and perhaps the last, President to come to office without ever having been elected President or Vice President. Thanks to the newly minted 25^th Amendment, President Nixon had the opportunity to nominate a person to fill the vacancy in the office of Vice President occasioned by the resignation in disgrace of Spiro Agnew. Soon afterward, Nixon, himself, was felled by the political maelstrom know simply as “Watergate.” While it is unfair to call Ford an accidental President, as he has been dubbed, it was an outcome beyond reasonable anticipation.

Both Lincoln and Ford came to the office in a time of Constitutional crisis and deep political divisions. Neither brought with them an elitist pomposity that is too often found in those who rise to great heights of fame and power. Both were considered simple men, more likely to depend on common sense than academic acumen. If they were good communicators, it was because they both understood plain-speak. In fact, Lincoln transformed public oratory from the prolonged flamboyance and dramatics of such people as Edward Everett to the simpler style and form we find to this day. Lincoln ended the era of orators-as-entertainers, and nowhere more convincingly than at Gettysburg.

Ford and Lincoln were genuinely respectful of those with whom they disagreed. More importantly, they were magnificently forgiving. Had he lived, Lincoln would have issued general pardons to the military and political leaders his armies defeated. He saw no benefit to expose the nation to an era of trials and hangings. Ford sacrificed his political future to spare the nation the agony of placing a former President on trial. Both Lincoln and Ford believed that reconciliation could best be achieved through forgiveness.

It is said that Lincoln was an easy man to know. People felt comfortable in his presence. He was an engaging conversationalist, eager to listen and quick to quip. His conversational style did not change, whether he was in the presence of a common citizen or a prominent person.

I cannot know from experience whether the characterization of Lincoln is fact or fable. I can say from experience that those qualities at least attributed to the 16^th President are very much the traits of Ford. Among the number of Presidents I have been privileged to meet in person, Jerry Ford (as I knew him) stands out as among the kindest and most descent men in politics.

My first contact with Ford came in my days as a consultant to the White House during the Nixon administration. As Minority Leader of the House of Representative, there were a number of occasions where I was invited (sometimes ordered) to meet with Ford at public forums or private meetings in his office. I was impressed by two qualities of the former President. After our first meeting, he never failed to recognize me by name in any setting, and had no problem referring to past conversations – whether the subject of critical policy or some anecdote of my personal life.

I also was impressed by the fact that when speaking to a person, he was fixed on the conversation. His eyes did not dart around the room looking for the next encounter or more important personality, as is a very common trait of politicians.

And then there was that Lincoln-esque casual friendliness. In the presence of Ford, one never felt awe – and lest not after a moment or two of conversation. It was more like meeting a nice guy at a local tavern. I sometimes wondered if this was not to his detriment. Maybe all those inaccurate parodies and mockeries of his intellect and physical facility would not have been so easily rendered if it had not been for his commonness. Some have even contended that the Chevy Chase comedic rendition of a stumblebum President Ford cost him the election.

During my years in Washington, and for a time following, I remained in modest friendship with Ford. On the occasion of the birth of my first child, Ford visited and brought flowers for my wife. He attended a number events to which I invited him. Two occasions stand out in my mind. The first was a Smithsonian Institution reception in recognition of a collection of cast iron toys donated by Sears, Roebuck & Co. He was then Minority Leader. The other was after he took over the Oval Office. He accepted my invitation to be guest of honor at a charitable event in Chicago (see photograph).

As a lobbyist for Sears, and before gifts to legislators were the subjects of scandal, I recall giving the President an Olympic tie. Sears was the outfitter of the Olympic team that year. After the Olympics were over, Ford returned the tie back to me as a personal memento. It was a tie he wore frequently.

I was also a participant in an incident involving Ford at the 1976 GOP National Convention – an incident in which he most likely never knew of my role. I was there as communications director for the Illinois delegation led by former Governor Dick Ogilvie. To add to the festivities, I convinced a friend at Whamoo to give me 500 Frisbees to add to the convention floor festivities. They were inscribed, “I flipped my Frisbee over Ford.” It was a site, as hundreds of Frisbees took to the air before and after his acceptance speech. As the President was coming to the podium, or receding from the podium (I was never told which), one of my flying saucers bounced off the President’s forehead – much to the chagrin of the Secret Service. I was later told that my most lasting contribution to the American national political conventions was the banning of Frisbees and other airborne objects.

Apart from the tie and a Frisbee or two, my most cherished Ford possession is a series of three letters in which Ford responded to my congratulations on his ascent to the presidency. The content of the letters, and the fact that they are written on the respective letterheads of the United States Congress, The Vice President and the President, make them cherished documents, personally and historically.

It has not been many years since I have enjoyed his company, but the memories will never dim. I feel grateful as an American to have lived through those difficult times with my friend Jerry Ford at the helm. More personally, I have been most fortunate to have had the pleasure to know such a good and decent human being. Jerry Ford was a giant of a man, but never looked down on anyone. God bless him, and may he rest in the peace of eternity he so well deserves.

OP ED: Welcome to the Lieberman Senate.

Well… now that the Democrats control the Senate … ah … hmmmmm. What did I just say? The Democrats control the Senate? No. No. No. In fact, the person who controls the Senate is a man the Dems booted … betrayed … insulted. The person who controls the Senate is the newly independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman.

His thumping (the new term of art, thanks to Bush) of the Democratic nominee, who was vigorously endorsed by Lieberman’s old colleagues in the Senate, makes Lieberman a truly independent legislator. He is free of party loyalty and entitled to more than a little pay back, which I feel certain will be the case at the most critical moments.

On every close vote, he is going to be the “go to” guy. On any issue where Lieberman is needed to create a Democrat majority, his price can be high. If he decides to vote with the GOP on Iraq, abortion, and some social and economic measures, he creates a tie in the Senate, and Vice President Dick Cheney gets to caste the deciding vote.

At the same time, the guy who might have balanced off Lieberman by crossing over to the Democrat ranks, GOPer Lincoln Chaffee, was retired by the voters. This is truly the “Lieberman Congress.” He is the Majority Leader of Self --- a majority of one.

It is going to be interesting, to say the least.

REACT: If you can't join 'me, draft 'em

In the previous blog, I alluded to the legislation proposed by New York Democrat Charlie Rangel, which would re-impose the draft. As I think about it, this deserves a little more attention.

Who would have expected it? After a significant victory at the polls based on opposition to the Iraq war, the grateful Democrats propose to end all wars by … ya have to love the logic … by bringing back the old draft. If this proposal had seen the light of day during the campaign, it would likely have cost the Democrats the Senate – maybe even the House.

If I happened to be one of the ubiquitous anti war peaceniks who gave the all to the Democrats, I would be a bit upset. Instead of sparing my kids the rigors of war, I now set them on acertain path to participation in the much despised military-industrial complex.

Rangel suggest that if the offspring of the warmongers had to face the enemy, there would be no wars. Well, under that thinking, there would be no United States … no France … no England. There are times an honorable nation has to repel the forces of evil.

But, even in an unpopular war, the draft would make cannon fodder of the children of the hawks and the doves. At least, the hawks, doves, and yes, even the chickens have a choice.

Rangel has it all backwards, as usual. (You know, in D.C. he not considered the sharpest knife in the drawer.) A voluntary military require … well… volunteers. This means that an unpopular war would be difficult to man (or woman). Noble battles tend to draw more volunteers. With conscription, the super hawks in Washington can undertake any war … popular or not without concern for troop levels

Finally, let’s remember that the powerful and influential will always find ways to get around “the system.” Don’t count on THEIR kids to be in the front line. It didn’t happen under the old draft system, and won’t happen in any new one. Those with the means and the desire to exempt their kids will find a way.

They say that Rangel is offering draft legislation just to make a point, with no desire to see it passed – and no ability to get it passed. If that is the case, then his point is well made. Rangel is a contentious fool.

And he now heads the all powerful Ways and Means committee. Ouch!

OP ED: GOP may be the winner in this eleciton.

Since I think political philosophy is much more important than partisanship, I have come to the conclusion that the defeat of the Bush-led Republican party is a good thing – for the nation and for the conservative cause.

I am pleased that the shift in power was accomplished by a very small shift in voter preference. When the nation is just about equally divided along party lines, it only takes a few votes to cause seismic changes in relative partisan power. Contrary to Democrat claims and desires, this was not a mandate for change, but a mild course adjustment for the public. If the Dems actually believe their own utterances, they are likely to pursue an agenda that will put the elephant party back in the driver’s seat in two years.

Much of the Democrat success was through the recruitment of candidates a lot further to the right than had been the case in the past. Pro-lifers and born again Christians were among the Election Day winners. The upcoming Congress will not likely jump too far to the left. It is very likely that the House and Senate leadership, being more of the strident left tradition, will find rebellion in the ranks if the leadership advances an agenda too liberal for their members – and the American people.

If the Democrat victory is not as scary as it first appeared, the GOP defeat is not quite so tragic. This Republican administration lacked a conservative compass. Elements of the Patriot Act invoke a freedom-stealing nationalism that any legitimate conservative would abhor – and we did. The spend thrift ways of the GOP majority was disheartening to the point of despair.

It was not easy supporting the D.C. Republicans merely because the alternative seems so much more egregious. Now we have the alternative. Now we can plan for a future with a renewed (hopefully) GOP most dedicated to principle.

In addition, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate was uninspired, at best. One would think that any change would be an improvement, but looking at the installation of the junior uninspired leadership to the top posts suggests that the congressional Republicans still don’t get it. It is ironic that Dennis Hastert was at once the longest serving GOP Speaker, and the least effective. Senate leader Bill Frist had the moxie, but lacked the charisma. Their good-old-boy approach was one of the under reported reasons for the collapse of the vaunted GOP political machine.

REACT: Milton Friedman's last thrity years are a gift.

The legendary Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman has passed away at the age of 94. That is quite an accomplishment. If you do not think so, you are not aware of how I almost killed him some thirty years ago.

I have two professional relationships with Friedman involving two of his greatest passions. The most recent was as an advisor to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Way back when, however, I was retained as a senior advisor to the National Tax Limitation Committee, a group founded by my friend Lew Uhler. Friedman was the intellectual powerhouse behind the concept of a tax-limitation constitutional amendment.

One day it was my task to chauffeur our group from our hotel to a meeting in a nearby office building. We were running late. Lew popped into the front passenger seat. Friedman and his wife, Rose, took up the rear seat. I was driving. Since we were running late, I did a bit of a jackrabbit start.

Well … Friedman had not exactly taken up his seat, as I said. He was in the process of taking up his seat, with on foot on the floorboard and the other on the pavement. As the car lurched forward, Freidman flew backward. Rose’s scream brought me to a halt. As I looked back, the rear door was open, the seat behind Lew was empty… and there was some guy rolling around on the ground a few feet behind the car.

Fortunately, he survived without as much as a bruise. Outside of an abrasion on his suit, he was in mint condition. If everyone every thought of Friedman as anything but gracious, you were not there to see his kind assurances, and his assistance that I drive – despite the understandable offer from Lew to take over the wheel.

While I am sad to see Friedman leave this world without the benefit of his contemporaneous wisdom, I am thankful for all the days he has been around since that fateful day.

OUTRAGE: What makes Horist see red?

OUTRAGE #1: Illinois Senator Dick Durban has proposed legislation that would excuse government lawyers from the burden of their student loans. You got it. This special class of public servant will be allowed to opt out of their contractual obligation to repay us taxpayers the money we fronted for their lucrative careers. Since a lot lawyers cum judges spend a least a portion of their career on the public payroll, this could be a pretty big blow to the Student Loan Program, which is not exactly in good shape to begin with. Also, consider that Prosecutorial abuse is reaching pandemic proportions, and these are the very people Durbin would give yet another reward. This also means some other income-limited person will not get his or her student loan. Talk about a program to help the rich at the expense of the poor. How much more can we do to make lawyers a privileged class not seen since we slipped out from under the yoke of royalty? Shakespeare wrote that society could only improve if we kill off the lawyers. (Gotta love the Bard of Avon. <-- That’s a reference to Shakespeare for those of you who attend urban public schools.) While slaying attorneys is a bit extreme (in most cases), fewer lawyers and LESS special privileges would be a healthy move. But what can you expect from lawmakers who mostly are … lawyers. If this trend continues, lawyers well surpass public school teachers as the most coddled class in our society. Yes, there are good lawyers … even great ones … about 20 percent of them, I would estimate. Damn few go on to be judges, however – and almost none work for the big law firms.

OUTRAGE #2: Illinois Senator Dick Durbin.

OUTRAGE #3: Convicted felon and former Illinois Governor George Ryan was given an undeserved Christmas present when the Appellate Court said he could remain a free man until his appeal is heard. Since the appeal could drag on for years, many think Ryan will never serve a day behind bars. No wonder Illinois is the most corrupt state in America. This is a guy whose corruption led to the deaths of six children in an auto/truck accident where the truck driver was operating with an illegal license obtained by cash to Ryan’s campaign fund. Unfortunately, those kids will not have an opportunity to appeal their fate.

OUTRAGE #4: Did you hear about Lisa Jensen, the woman who was ordered to remove a Christmas wreath in the shape of a peace symbol because it offended some (at least one) of her neighbors in the Loma Linda Homeowners Association of Pagosa Springs, Colorado? Seems like Association President Bob Kearns demanded that his Architecture Control Committee (a bit Orwellian?) order the removal of the offending holiday greenery. He said it was an anti Iraq war message, some said a symbol of Satan. The good Committee refused. (Whew! Still patriots among us.), so Big Brother Bob then fired the Committee, and imposed a $25 a day fine on the nice lady. She now owes more than $1000. Let me first say that I understand she was probably sending a somewhat subtle political message about the war. What about the Satan thing, you ask? Well … fruitcakes are not the only thing with lots of nuts. Let me add that I would probably disagree with the woman’s politics and the message –more likely to agree with good ole boy Bob on most matters. However, I do cherish that First Amendment. How can we talk of free speech if a person cannot express something as innocent as a political opinion? This is Christmas, for God’s sake. (ß Notice “Christmas” and “God” in the same sentence. Not something you see often these days.) What a horrid concept – an expression of peace during the Christmas season. Bah humbug!! But, isn’t that what it is all about, love and peace? Or, have I been theologically misled by the Hallmark Card Company. It seems the First Amendment is coming under assault from every direction these days. This kind of stuff worries me because with liberals in charge of Congress and the courts, I now have to worry about MY free speech. Since I am not willing to defend Lisa’s right to the death, a la Nathan Hale, I can at least offer her this testy blog item.

OUTRAGE #5: Newly anointed Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has indicated her support for the naming of Congressman, Alcee Hasting as head of the House Intelligence Committee. Such a selection only shows that there is not enough intelligence in the House to even form a committee. You may not recall (Pelosi is hoping that you do not) that the now “Honorable” Mr. Hasting was the former Florida federal judge who was impeached and booted from the bench for bribery. Since his unethical activities limited his employment in the real world, Hasting opted to run for Congress – a suitable profession for any rogue. Despite his record (or because of it), he was elected. But, guess who booted him off the bench. The very House of Representatives soon to be lead by Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, Alcee lives by the adage, “If you can’t beat 'em, join “'em.” Hoooweeeeever, seems like the Congress has given Pelosi her comeuppance again. Facing certain defeat, Pelosi has withdrawn her nomination.

REACT: Chaffee kills Bolton in bitter revenge

It appears that Republican Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated (yea!!!) in the recent election has decided to express his bitterness and disloyalty by voting against the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. – thus dooming a permanent appointment. His historic arrogant, ugly and dishonest attitude was the reason Republicans and Democrats alike were pleased to see him “retired” by public demand.

Just when we had an ambassador who was not more of a society figure than a diplomat. Not since Jean Kirkpatrick has the United States been more effective and firmly represented. Despite the fears or critics, Bolton has proven himself to be an outstanding representative of our country. He has been able to advance American interests as his first priority.

This puts our world interests on hold, with the likelihood of the congressional Dem leadership playing hardball on this appointment. – and others.

As a fan of Abraham Lincoln, I think Chaffee should be stripped of his name too. Hmmmmm. Benedict Arnold Chaffee has a nice ring to it. Don't you think?

REACT: Finally ... Dan Rather exposed

Former CBS talking head, Dan Rather has finally reached his level of professional standing. You will recall that he was forced into early retirement for broadcasting a patently false story about George Bush. Well he pops up on the election team of Comedy Central, along with pseudo newscasters Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. Rather than not have his face on camera, Rather showed that professionalism and dignity are not obstacles to vanity. He could not have been more ridiculous if he had appeared in baggy pants and bulbous red nose, and sprayed Colbert and Stewart with seltzer water. Of course, as a journalist, Rather has always been ... well... rather of a joke.

LMAO: Kerry has a way with jokes

It must have been a joke because I can’t stop laughing. I am referring to Senator John Kerry’s statement about the men and women in the armed services. He told a bunch of students that if the completed their education they would have a good life. If not, they go to Iraq.

Well … you can imagine the reaction to that bit of advice. Only dummies go to war. Maybe that is why he served in the military. After all, he is rather stupid.

Kerry then generated another round of guffaws with is apology. He said that if anyone misunderstood his meaning, he is sorry. Hahahaha. Get it. If YOU were so stupid that you did not get his meaning of his joke, then he is sorry.

This makes me think. I should apologize to the Senator for saying he is stupid. So, here goes. “Senator, I wish to humbly apologize for drawing attention to your stupidity.” Whew! That makes me feel a lot better.

Like any good comedians, Kerry saves the really funny line for last. Through his staff he restated his joke to mean that it if you’re a dumb or intellectually lazy, you get stuck in Iraq. “Just ask President Bush.”

Hahahahaha

I think the joke is on me, because it sounds like he just restated the same opinion, but put in George Bush’s name as one of those “I’m still angry that you beat me” things.

I guess the funniest thing about Kerry is the humiliation schtick. The whole episode is like dropping your pants at a wedding party just to get the obvious laugh. How can you not laugh at Kerry. He must be a great comedian, because hardly anyone takes him serious.

Hahahahahaha

OUTRAGE: Corruption's Double Standard

I still can't get over the extent of news media bias against Republicans when it comes to scandal. I think it is worth repeating the most recent glaring example. GOP Congressman Mark Foley vs. the late Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds.

Foley sends out salacious emails to underage male pages (certainly outrageous, but so far no one is saying illegal). He immediately resigns in the face of certain censure and getting booted out of Congress. He apologizes and seeks treatment. (Granted, the latter is probably a public relations ploy.) He is scorned in the national press. Front page headlines demonize him, stirring up a public frenzy of disdain. There even are calls for the Speaker of the House to resign. Foley is grist for the talk show mills. Pundits pick at the bones of his political career.

Gerry Studds actually f&#ks (sorry for the not-so-disguised word, but his action deserves no euphemism) a 17 year old male page when times were even less tolerant of gayness. He refuses to apologize, and claims he did nothing wrong. His Massachusetts colleague, Barney Frank, also gay, makes minimizing jokes of his behavior. The Democrat party leadership (in control of Congress at the time) does nothing -- not even a note home to his parents. Instead he goes on to being an "honorable member" of the House for 16 more years.

Oh … were this just a rare example.

OP ED: Senator Reid lucky to be a Democrat

You may have missed the latest example of media bias, or how Democrats get away with murder. (Okay, only Senator Kennedy really gets away with murder, but you get the idea).

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been found ethically challenged, and perhaps criminally culpable, for a very large real estate transaction in his home state. Seem "Dirty Harry," as he is aptly named, invested $400,000 in a land deal in 1998. He then turn around and sold it off to a lobbyist friend three years later. Now this could raise some eyebrows. Was the transaction a real market deal, of was there some hidden profits from his lobbyist friend for "services rendered?"

But wait! THAT is not the deal.

Seems like three years AFTER Dirty Harry dumped the land, the lobbyist sold it for $1.1 million. That must have made the lobbyist really happy, and Dirty Harry sorry he did not hold on to the land. But nooooooo. Because Dirty Harry got the money.

Confused? Let me repeat. Three years AFTER he sold the real estate, the Democrat leader of the U.S. Senate was gifted with $700,000 in "profit" by a lobbyist.

The Senate did not investigate his behavior because Dirty Harry, who was a member of the ETHICS COMMITTEE at the time, did not note the transaction on his ethics statement. Yep! Forget. An honest mistake. Anyone can forget $700,000 here and there. Besides, we was very busy holding press conferences accusing Republicans of corruption.

Sure there was s small drivel of publicity about this outrageous, unethical and arguably illegal behavior. But not enough to suggest anything close to balanced reporting. Not enough to create a public outcry. Not enough to motivate an investigation.

So, where are the media calls for an investigation? Where are the headlines and editorials demanding explanation? Where is the demand for a Senate internal investigation? What was the land deal that turned $400,000 to $1.1 million in so short a time?

Once again Democrats show an extraordinary immunity to scandal. Maybe it is because the public sees Democrat corruption as normal. God knows, there is enough of it. And someone besides God would know if there were balanced responses.

REACT: Madonna and Child (and not the Christmas story)

Pop Singer Madonna and her hubbie, Guy Ritchie, recently adopted a child through some sort of African express lane. It was more like picking a child off the shelf than a traditional adoption process.

Now it is all shaping up to be a scandal. While other potential parents wait years for sluggish bureaucrats to run a kid through the process, Madonna was able to get instant results based on her celebrity. Ergo, the scandal.

Well, this is surly a first class scandal. Shocking. Disgusting.

Oh! I am not condemning Madonna. No ... no ... no! What is scandalous, shocking and disgusting is “the normal process” that can delay an adoption many months (years), while anxious patents wait and needy children languish.

I am not speaking theoretically. My own adopted daughter was determined to adopt her Jamaican nephew after the separate tragic deaths of her brother-in-law, then sister. It was an uncontroversial adoption. Troy was 13 at the time and more than willing to be with his aunt. No other relatives objected. There were no estate issues. There were no official problems. Just a needy kid and a loving aunt.

Just following normal bureaucratic procedures delayed his happy arrive into our family by four years. Troy was 17 when he strode across our threshold for the first time. He had been denied 4 years of loving security and stability by "the normal process."

Aren't these public official and bureaucrats aware of time? This was a maturing teenager in need of his family. He was denied this by nothing more than "the normal procedure."

Many worry that prospective parents are finding ways ... legal and illegal ... to short cut the system. Well, if the "system" was not so damned heartless and obstructionist, there would be no need to bypass it.

So let’s keep the horror of scandal where it belongs, on the heads of those who find ways to slow down adoptions -- and not those who find ways to speed them up. I am so weary of the so-called do-gooders claiming the system is there to protect the child. That is utter nonsense. One reason children remain institutionalized is that they are little money magnets for the institution.

I say, good for Madonna. I don't care if she went around ... under ... or over ... “the normal procedures” because “the normal procedures” suck.

LMAO: Obama, say what?

In view of the Congressman Mark Foley's emails to young male pages, and remembering former Congressman Dan Crane's and the (as of late) late Congressman Gerry Studs' turning over a page or two, themselves, I had to laugh when I read Senator Barak Obama's evaluation of a run for president. He said, "We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the pages pretty well."

Someone should tell the Senator that pages are not a presidential perquisite. They are CONGRESSIONAL fringe benefits. INTERNS are presidential job benefits. You would think he would know this stuff.

OP ED: Iraqi: Violence for Votes

As the election closes in, the level of Iraqi violence against Americans and American partisans increases. American military deaths and injuries peak. Innocent Iraqis are rounded up by the scores and beheaded by maniacal butchers. Bombs bursting at public gathering places.

The coming U.S. election and the increase in violence is no coincidence. It only takes a little common sense to know that the international terrorist want to put Democrats in control of Congress. They want to undermine Bush’s determination to destroy the cabal of international murderers. They want the soft policies of the left wing appeasers to gain favor. They want the national media to continue to propagandize against the White House. They want the American people to surrender to world terrorism.

Killing soldiers and innocent men, women and children is the Jihadists’ way of campaigning for a Democrat victory. They are doing their part of convince the American electorate to abandon the war by abandoning the President.

As we lose our resolve to defend ourselves, and the free world, the sadistic killers increase their determination to destroy us. They are now winning the most important battle of the war – the very will to win.

REACT: Greeley off the mark

Andrew Greeley’s animosity toward Republicans overcomes his theology and intellectual integrity. He recently explained why the GOP is likely to retain both the U.S. House and Senate. Most notable of his flawed rationales was his contention that scandals impact harder on Democrats than Republicans.

Hmmmm. GOPer Jack Ryan was forced out of a Senate race merely for having salacious thoughts. Mark Foley recently resigned in disgrace though there is no current evidence that he had sex with underage pages. So far, no one can even tell whether his obnoxious and offensive behavior is illegal.

Now consider the recently departed Gerry Studds. As a Democrat congressman, he had sex with an underage male page. Refusing to apologize, he continued to serve many more years as a “respected member” of Congress. About that same time, Republican Congressmen Dan Crane had sex with an underage female page, and his political career ended.

Consider Democrat Barney Frank. He placed his male prostitute friend on the payroll as an “aide” while his paramour was running tricks out of the congressman’s apartment. He is still serving as a “respected member” of Congress.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all, the “respected” Senator Ted Kennedy. He caused the death of a young lady in a late-night, post-party accident, fled the scene (some medical evidence suggest he left her to die), and produced a Kennedy-scale cover up. Later on, tabloids exposed his bloated naked body on the deck of a yacht during a “pleasure cruise.” He remained a “respected” colleague among his Democrat peers and the press.

Of course, Nixon was forced from office for his cover up – which did NOT include perjury. Media coverage forced him into seclusion. Clinton remains the darling of press and the Dems after endless indiscretions, felons and cover-ups. He could even wind up back in the White House.

Following a term in jail, Illinois Republican Attorney General William Scott was sent off to oblivion. Former Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski is released from prison to be a “respected” television commentator, press pundit and a “must invite” on the social register.

And the list goes on. Whatever one’s partisan position might be, or one’s opinion of any of these guys, the record is clear. The GOP takes a much harder hit on scandals than the Democrats. Greeley needs to relay more on grey matter than bile.

OP ED: Obama: Boom or Bomb

Poor Barak Obama.

It would appear that I am the only one in America … in the world … who feels sorry for Illinois’ junior Senator Barak Obama.

One would have to have been in a coma for the past couple years not to know of the guy. His every action is the subject of ubiquitous uncritical media hype. From the recent cover of Time magazine to the daily reports of his every breath. His omnipresence in virtually every media outlet – from national news providers, Internet blogs, gossip columns, trade publications, society pages, to the most local weekly newspaper – is devoid of even the modest criticism. He is the most renowned and flattered political figure of his day. (He even gets more publicity than the camera crazy Jesse Jackson – which must be a source of great pain to the good reverend.)

What makes Obama’s “coverage” so remarkable is that it surpasses his office, his accomplishments, his power, his almost anything. He has not broken any racial barriers. He is not the first black senator in modern times. That feat goes to former Senator Ted Brooke of Massachusetts. Obama is not even the first black senator from the Land of Lincoln. Carol Mosely Brown gets that honor.

He seems to generate endless puffy publicity because the press loves him. He is lionized and canonized by the leaders of the fifth estate. He is catapulted into the national limelight for things others do without notice. He is reported simply because he is. In that, he is the Paris Hilton of politics – only with a lot more charm and brains.

To be sure, Obama seems to be a very fine person. Maybe THAT is the news angle … a “very fine person” in politics. Hmmmmm. Not something you see every day. He is charismatic to be sure. I sense he is a very honest person – intellectually, morally and ethically. (Another political departure?) You cannot help but like and admire the guy.

So, why the pity for Obama?

Because, there will come a time in the future when the highly inflated and over exposed senator will have to re-enter the real world. As he gets more serious about a future in the White House, it will take more than a fab smile and charming talk to carry the day. In fact, the bigger than life image will turn into a detriment, as it has for those who traveled the rarified air of unbridled publicity before him.

I recall another senator from Illinois who machetted the path now being taken by Obama. Charles Percy, a very ambitious presidential aspirant, was a 29-year-old corporate wunderkind with the looks of a movie star. He too gave a speech at the national convention of his party (Republican, in his case) that set the political world abuzz. He was the most talked about “future president” in America. The likes of Senator Ev Dirksen flatly predicted that “just call me Chuck” Percy most certainly would be sitting in the Oval Office one day – and not as a guest.

Percy was grist for the media mill on a daily basis – and yes, there was even that September 18, 1964 Time magazine cover. He too had a picture perfect family – bright and beautiful. (His one twin daughter is now the wife of Senator Jay Rockefeller. Sadly, the other twin was tragically murdered.)

Percy was young enough to be a presidential prospect for maybe six or seven quadrennial national elections. He had it made, but he never made it. He never got close to being president. Not even a nomination – not even for vice president.

If history repeats itself, the intense exposure that highlights all Obama’s fine points will eventually draw attention to the chinks in his armor. Interest in his personality will give way to interest in his political views. The universality of his appeal will wane. He will find it impossible to live up to his glorified reputation. Disappointment will set in -- disappointment proportionate to the level of past adoration.

Then there is the nature of presidential politics. It is not a process that appreciates those who gain early favor. Initial front-runners almost always fail. There are too many vicissitudes to ensure that ambition and careful planning will result in success. At the moment he is universally beloved by his Democrat peers – largely because his only current role is to raise money. Once he starts to stand in the way of the ambitions of other titans of the donkey party, even his partisan choir will start singing a different tune.

Obama should enjoy the media joy ride for its ego satisfaction. But, if he is serious about the presidency, he should to into hiding for a while. Cool down the klieg lights. Of course, to tell a politician to withdraw from such fawning publicity is like telling an alcoholic to close his lips while submerged in a barrel of beer.

My prediction. Obama gets to the Oval Office only as a guest.

REACT: Daley's Olympics is just so much Greek mythology

In the latest round of “let’s pretend were going to have an Olympics,” Chicago Mayor Daley has selected a site for a new stadium, gone to Washington to urge the Illinois congressional delegation to cheer on the idea (duuuuuh!), and announced that his Olympics will not require any taxpayer funding. (<-- Yeah! He really said that.)

I guess if you are going to talk about a fantasy Olympic bid, you can make it as fictional as a Michael Moore documentary.

Of course the stadium idea only reminds us (again) of the fiasco at Soldier’s Field. Now Mayor Green Space is thinking of tearing up a great park for yet another stadium. And who will use the new stadium after the Olympians go home? Well, not to worry. There will be no Olympians here anyway … ergo no new stadium.

Nice PR move though … going to Washington to get the Illinois delegation endorsing his fantasy. I mean, what would you expect an Illinois legislator to say … “please, please do not give Chicago the Olympics?”

Of course, it is a lot more pleasant answering hypothetical questions about a theoretical event than to deal with inquiries regarding the level official corruption that is lapping political effluent at the door of Hizzoner’s office.

Private funding? No taxpayer money? Geez, even fantasies have to maintain some credibility. First of all, if I were one of those deep pocket business leaders who got hog snaggled into paying for Millennium Park, with all its cost overruns, I would be petrified with fear to guarantee a multi billion dollar spectacle like the Olympics.

And, if any one believes that an Olympic bid can be successful without HUGE amounts of taxpayer money, I have some old Enron stock I would like to sell to you. Support services alone will require hundreds of millions in additional spending. Just making an Olympic bid will cost the taxpayers millions. I mean, who paid for the PR luncheon and press conference in Washington?

OBSERVATION: Rosie news versus real news.

The press is abuzz with the “news” that Rosie O’Donnell is causing all sorts of trouble as the new seat warmer on Barbara "Waa Waa" Walters television show, The View. So … who cares?

I often argue that the press only delivers what the public wants. I no longer believe that. I think the fall off in readership, listenership and viewership is the direct result of the news barons pushing what THEY think is news. Thank God for cable television and the Internet.

OP ED: When does America get attacked again?

Virtually everyone is convinced that the international terrorists will make another strike on United States soil. How can we best protect ourselves from such an attack? Are we safer in the hands of Republicans or Democrats?

Or course partisans will argue for their own team, but common sense will provide a better answer. We are safer under Republicans. Despite the blame game going around political circles, it is clear that the terrorists will see Democrats as softer. History and current rhetoric provide ample evidence – and an election victory for the party of appeasement will confirm the terrorist view.

I suspect that within six to twelve months of a Democratic takeover of either house of Congress, the terrorists will to test America's declining resolve in a major way. Once they see American resolve evaporating, they will intensify their worldwide campaign of terror with American in the bullseye.

I do not anticipate a major terrorist attack on America before the election, because terrorist leaders know that such an event would strengthen Bush in the polls. Bin Ladin and company are most certainly rooting for a Dem victory to embolden their legions. This is not to say the Dems are intentional allies of the terrorists, just that their political positions have mutual appeal. Emboldening the terrorists is just an inevitable outcome of a Democrat victory.

Some note that we withdrew from Vietnam and the world situation did not worsen. Of course the GOP would argue, with some credibility, that the end of the Vietnam War was managed by a Republican administration, which also opened friendly relations with North Vietnam's powerful backer, China. Later Republican administrations adroitly brought down the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union. In other words, our major adversaries of the cold war were transformed into allies of sorts by remarkably well developed and executed diplomacy.

The terrorists do not operate like the Vietnamese leaders, however. They are maniacal radicals who see mass murder and genocide as primary missions. The do not seek land or political power as a primary goal. They are not driven by the defense of a culture. Rather, they are motivated by an obsession to murder. There only victory is the annihilation of unbelievers. There can be no negotiated peace.

The liberal view of appeasement is doomed to failure, and America will suffer even greater losses to the extent the pacifists are successful.

Think it through ....

REACT: What Does Mayor Daley Know? And When Did He Know It?

Recently, Mayor Daley was asked if city services are tied to elections, and if people get more services closer to Election Day – as political favors. He replied, “No. None whatsoever.”

You can now add this to the long list of common, well-known practices of the Democrat machine of which Mayor Daley is clueless. Where did this man grow up? Who is he trying to fool? (Oh yeah, the U.S. Attorney.)

As a young Republican precinct captain in the old 36th ward, I was once successful in bringing in a GOP majority in an election. That winter, I recall watching the city workers shoveling the front porch of the ward committeemen. When a ploy reached our precinct, the blade was lifted and the truck drove past our homes, leaving only its tire tracks in the snow. When I requested that a curb repair for a neighbor, the alderman bluntly told me that the department (Streets and Sanitation) would not be responsive to requests from our precinct until there was a better election result. My neighbors were unable to get free garbage cans offered through the ward committeeman’s office.

We all knew how city work schedules are arranged to provide maximum service, and minimum disruption, near elections. Street paving is done after elections because it tends to tie up traffic and anger motorists. Free trees for the parkway and new curbs take place closer to elections. The boys at Streets and San laugh about this kind of stuff over brewskis in local taverns.

That mayor of ours sure has a way with good old fashion Irish blarney. He should join the boys from Streets and San at the corner pub. Maybe he would learn something of how the city is run.

REACT: Senator Lieberman Defeat Good for Conservatives

The strident America-is-always-wrong anti-war movement is salivating over the defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democrat primary. And well they should. They focused their national resources on the myopic effort to make Iraq the deciding issue, and to demonize Lieberman for a modicum of independent thinking. It was their intent to send a message to the donkey party – that the extreme left as heft.

They now have bragging rights in claiming that the neo-libs have more influence in the Democrat party than they did a few weeks ago. I agree. I am thrilled with the outcome. But, if I am thrilled, shouldn’t the lefties be less than thrilled?

The praising press, the pleased pundits and the pat-themselves-on-the-back partisans seem to have forgotten that they only won a PRIMARY. All that talk about what message the “public” is sending is bad or biased analysis. It is only a fraction of a faction that brought about the Lieberman primary defeat. It appears at this moment that Lieberman will prevail in the general election among the broader range of voters not shackled to the politics of the fuzzy-headed fringe. The tactics of moveon.org and the tens of millions of dollars being spread around on every anti-American cause by gazillionaire George Soros will not be nearly as effective in November.

Since the Dems need to move to the right to get more traction with the public majority if they are to again become the governing party, the Lieberman outcome is good news for the GOP. The more the Dems look like the party of Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, and Dean, the more they marginalize themselves. Even Hilary Clinton is starting to look like a moderate in the neo-lib dominated party.

Right now, the public is giving the Republicans the equivalent of a spanking in the popularity polls. It is not at all assured that they are ready to throw them out of the house. This would not be the first time the media reported a grim future for the GOP only to have the voters prove them wrong. In fact, that is almost become an American election tradition. The problem with media bias is that it tends to produce wishful thinking as opposed to clear-headed reporting. (Remember when they predicted a big GOP loss in the House and Senate, and the pachyderm party actually made gains in both. And, of course, they virtually gave John Kerry the 2004 election, only to have to curb their enthusiasm as George Bush and Company rolled to a convincing victory.)

I think the public will eventually go with the American vision of George Bush over the very un-American vision George Soros. I suspect mainstream American will trump moveon.org, as has been the case in the past. Perhaps, moveon.org should do just that.

OBSERVATION: Can Undercurrents Sweep Away Chicago's Mayor?

Chicago Mayor Daley may flash that sly and impish Irish grin, but it seems to be there to draw attention from the sweat on his brow. As a former prosecutor, he well knows the serious of the trouble in which he finds himself. As the quintessential politician, he surely knows that his public support is crumbling. As the chief mechanic of the political machine, he knows better than anyone (despite his incredible public denials) how his convicted political team has long operated. His careful nurturing of the Hispanic community is being undermined by newly aggressive opposition from guys like Congressman Louis Gutierrez. His hold on the black community is being dismantled by the likes of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and The Reverend State Senator James Meeks. The candidacy of Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown may be yet another sign of African-American dissention. The Mayor’s mishandling and feeble excuses over the police torture cases creates more serious disenchantment in the African-American community.

The white community is not exempting Da Boss from the crass and arrogant bequeathing of Cook County government from the stricken senior Stroger to his scion, Stroger-lite. The odds of a Republican taking over the reigns of Cook County government (inconceivable a few months ago) is looking like a real possibility.
Former Governor George Ryan “pay to play” activities were linked to the highway deaths of six children because the responsible truck driver was given his license in return for political work and contributions. Ryan could not shake the public’s belief in his culpability in the tragedy. Though the mainstream press does not hold Democrats to the same moral and ethical standards as Republicans, the parallel culpability is being advanced by some in the case of Tiara Woods. She is the 9-year-old who fell to her death because the politically connected city inspector falsified his inspection report on the porch construction. It will not help that Daley’s administration inexplicably rehired the politically connected inspector. The passage of the “big box” ordinance over Daley’s objections, and the enactment of what he refers to as “silly” legislation, in the case of the ban on pate de foie gras, suggest a rise in city council independency inversely proportionate to the perception of a weaker mayor.

The mayor, who once led the business community like a nose ringed bull, is experiencing public disenchantment over taxes and other business issues.

The once sycophantic press is suddenly shows signs of objective and criticism. The mayor no longer owns the editorial boards, or controls the news editors, as he once did.

And most of all, politicians and the public await the work of the U.S. Attorney. No one believes that the mayor of Chicago is now untouchable. In fact, many insiders speak of "when" the mayor gets indicted, not "if."

Now when the Mayor Daley gives us that Irish grin, I think of the words to that song, "Smile though your heart is breaking ..."

REACT: No Olympic Gold Medal for Chicago

This is one of those situations where I may have to eat my words, but I will take that risk. Here goes.

There is no way ... nada ... that Chicago will be selected to host the 2016 Olympics. The current "effort" is little more than a well understood charade to stoke a bit of civic pride and divert attention from the increasing ominous clouds of scandal that are gathering over City Hall.

Why no Olympics for Chicago?

First and foremost, the city will not, and cannot, afford it. The mayor's budget is developing more shortfalls in revenue against heightened expenditures. This trend will only get worse in the future. Chicago does not have the facilities for the many Olympic venues. New monstrously expensive arenas will be needed -- including a domed stadium.

(Should I be so rude as to remind the geniuses at City Hall that they approved an open-air renovation of Soldiers' Field? Stupidity tends to catch up with people. And not to mention the monstrosity that Chicago’s icon stadium has become.)

After the cost overruns and financial fiasco that beset Millennium Park, the business community is not likely to write blank checks to underwrite the Olympic project. A few shekels in support of the mayor's public relations is one thing. Tens of millions for actually implementing the plan is quite another.

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) is not even sure they will nominate Chicago to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). USOC President Peter Ueberroth has already offered a chilly shoulder in his assessment of Chicago’s bid.

Despite the prestige of the Chicago Olympic booster committee, they have produced an amateurish plan lacking in essential details -- such as just how and where they plan to build the venues. Ueberroth said the Chicago plan would need significant alterations and improvements to even come under serious consideration. The plan did nothing to convince the USOC or the IOC that Chicago even comprehends the task, much less has the human resource skill sets to accomplish it.

Another major factor is stability. The international folks are fully aware that Chicago's leadership is corrupt, and that the future of the mayor is in doubt. Unlike cities that experience leadership transitions as a matter of form, dictatorships tend to fall into chaos when the strongman falls. At the peak of his power, Mayor Daley may have had an outside chance to pull it off. Today, however, the mayor is losing his grip on the reigns of power -- and may eventually have them wrested from his fingers by more than public opinion. In any event, it is not likely Daley will be at the helm of city government ten years from now, but he could be “da mare” for a good portion of the critical planning period. The prospect of some significant level of political instability between now and 2016 is more “when” than “if.”

Finally, Chicago is just not good at attracting top-level world events. The gay games and the restaurant shows are one thing, but an Olympic hosting is quite another. To see the future of this project, you need only review the history of Chicago's most recent bid for Worlds Fair.

Undoubtedly, the work of Daley's Olympic booster committee will create news releases and social events for the months ahead. The press will trumpet every turn of events and announcements. But as the Bard of Avon put it, it is "much ado about nothing."

OBSRVATION: Who Will Die for Political Gain?

I have often said that public opposition to the war in Iraq by the ever present anti war claque, and the politicians who would rather govern a weakened America than allow others to govern over a strong America, will undermine our efforts, create international disunity, embolden the murderous terrorists, and … bottom line … kill a lot more American and allied soldiers, and innocent civilians.

This is not a futuristic view. It is happening. The weakened leadership that America and President Bush deal with in the world today is more the result of homegrown disloyalty than any policies coming out of Washington. We will never know who might have lived had the mass murdering terrorists been seen as the enemy instead of our own leaders. But, we can know for sure that there are many.

One can forgive the well intentioned, albeit misguided, activists, who think Cindy Sheehan is a heroine. There is no reason, however, to forgive the likes of Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Schumer, et al, who would advance their career ambitions over the bloodied bodies of so many good people.

REACT: She’s Baaaaaaaack!!

Cindy Sheehan is back in the news.

I was thrilled to have her in Europe selling her unique brand of anti-American drivel to the left-over lefties or the Old World. But alas, she has returned to the United States to the every ready publicity of the Fifth Estate.

The fact that polls show little support for her obsessive antics and extreme rhetoric does not tone down the press reports. Even anti-war activists have turned to critics on the basis of her outrageous statements. They fully understand that the more exposure Sheehan gets, the more the public sees her manifest madness. (I have to confess, I now am all in favor of giving her lots of publicity.)

Of course, those who know her best, her family, have abandoned her. Her husband divorced her, and other family members hardly speak to her at all – and when they speak of her, it is not very complimentary.

Once the mourning of her dead son was seen as an act to gain sympathy and publicity, Sheehan’s popularity plummeted. Even now, polls show an overwhelming percentage of the population find her more of an annoyance. While some say she has created the modern anti-war movement, most seem to think she has made it more unpopular.

In her ego driven need for attention and self worth, Sheehan seeks the public spotlight by standing on the gravestone of her heroic and honorable son, who scarified his life for America’s good cause. She is shameless. She is a civic masochist who finds her justification for being in the punishing derision and criticism of the public.

There is only one true hero in the Sheehan family, and it is not Cindy.

REACT: Mayor Daley: What does he know, and when did he know it?

Recently, Mayor Daley was asked if city services are tied to elections, and if people get more services closer to Election Day – as political favors. He replied, “No. None whatsoever.”

You can now add this to the long list of common, well-known practices of the Democrat machine of which Mayor Daley is clueless. Where did this man grow up? Who is he trying to fool? (Oh yeah, the U.S. Attorney.)

As a young Republican precinct captain in the old 36^th ward, I was once successful in bringing in a GOP majority in an election. That winter, I recall watching the city workers shoveling the front porch of the ward committeemen. When a ploy reached our precinct, the blade was lifted and the truck drove past our homes, leaving only its tire tracks in the snow. When I requested that a curb repair for a neighbor, the alderman bluntly told me that the department (Streets and Sanitation) would not be responsive to requests from our precinct until there was a better election result. My neighbors were unable to get free garbage cans offered through the ward committeeman’s office.

We all knew how city work schedules are arranged to provide maximum service, and minimum disruption, near elections. Street paving is done after elections because it tends to tie up traffic and anger motorists. Free trees for the parkway and new curbs take place closer to elections. The boys at Streets and San laugh about this kind of stuff over brewskis in local taverns.

That mayor of ours sure has a way with good old fashion Irish blarney. He should join the boys from Streets and San at the corner pub. Maybe he would learn something of how the city is run.

REACT: The Chicago Alderman have put themselves in a box … in a BIG box.

So eager to punish Wal-Mart for doing nothing more than being a very successful company that proves the superiority and benefits of our free market system, Democrat alderman passed an incredibly ridiculous ordinance that can only cost the city much need jobs, cause the lose of significant tax revenues, terminate further hope of economic and community improvement is some of the neediest neighborhoods, provide bargain prices for every one, and incur a bunch of legal fees to defend its dubious constitutionality. In passing this ordinance, the majority of the council joined the ranks of anti-capitalists and bashers of corporate America who would lead our nation in the direction of excessive government regulation – a concept that has failed all over the world.

Of course, they knew from the experiences of other communities that a war on Wal-Mart alone is unconstitutional. So, the city legislators crafted the ordinance so that a few more retailers, such as Target and Sears would fall under the living wage scheme. Many observers think this will also fall because of the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution.

It is ironic that the first time the otherwise compliant City Council has defied the strongman mayor, it does so with a sudden burst of stupidity.

So determined are the arch-liberals to bring down Wal-Mart that they will defy the Constitution and common sense. No one better personifies this liberal thinking than 46^th Ward Alderman Helen Shiller. She could not bring herself to even vote on the measure because it did not single out Wal-Mart. And, the ordinance could imperil the Target tentatively scheduled for her ward. Target was not her target. Wal-Mart was her target. That annoying United States Constitution prevented her from singling out the world’s successful retailer. So, the Honorable Shiller ducked and ran. Now Target has dropped plans for two future stores in Chicago, and the store in her district she hoped to protect may join the exodus.

Time for our good municipal legislators to think outside the box.

REACT: The Case of the Paranoid Professor

According to newspaper reports, a University of Wisconsin instructor, Kevin Barrett, has come under criticism from Republican legislators for teaching a course on Islam: Religion and Culture which professes that 9/11 was produced by the U.S. government as a pretext to war. That the accused terrorists did not have sufficient skill to fly the plans (despite the cell phone reports of many on-board victims). That the buildings were felled by pre-planted demolitions. Etc. Etc… Etc.

Several things struck me about that story … apart for the overriding absurdity. His neo-Muslim religious affiliation is not enough to explain his sudden allegiance to lunacy.

How does a person so demented get a job as an instructor? Hmmmmm. (Okay, I think I have answered my own question. Having spent a lot of time on college campuses, the out-of-reality ratio is quite high in academia. And of course, campuses incubate a large share of our low self-esteem antiestablishment feelings. This guy, however, is on the linty edge of the liberal fringe.) Amazingly, WU’s Provost Patrick Farrell defends the hiring. He issues the old clichés about academic freedom, and the course will get students thinking. Personally, I am thinking that Provost Barrett is not.

My second observation was the comparison to the teaching of a creation theory. If you cannot offer up a creation alternative, then what concept of academic freedom covers Barrett’s outrageously idiotic theories? Whatever you think of evolution vs. creation, there is a lot more scientific validity to the creation theory than Barrett’s paranoid 9/11 creation.

Finally, I was struck by the opposition of “Republican legislators.” Weeeell … I do know that newspapers like to spin anything that would suggest Republicans to be anti intellectual Neanderthals (and some are). Inadvertently, however, the newspaper appears to have made the unmentioned Democrats look bad. I mean, WHO would not be outraged that a major academic institution getting tons of taxpayer dollars should employ this guy. (We do have to cut a little slack since we are speaking of the University of Wisconsin – which institutionally is a bit off kilter anyway.) Is the inference to be drawn that the donkey party legislators support this guy? I would not even believe that of the most die-hard left-wing Dems. Okay… maybe John Kerry and Al Gore. But certainly not the good Democrats of the heartland.

REACT: PETA and the Dog Days of Summer

A local Chinese government has come under criticism for killing more than 50,000 dogs to curb rabies. In the most extreme cases, dogs were taken from owners on the streets and clubbed to death on the spot. Well ... I am not going to defend the method or even the killing of dogs that could have been inoculated. Of course, the People of Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is up in arms ... or up in paws, as the case may be.

It is more than a little hypocritical for the rabid animal extremists to bare their fangs since a goodly amount of PETA's funding comes form their killing off unwanted pets. Yeah! Your reading it right. One of the main "services" of PETA is to roam the back roads of America in mobile Nazi-style gas chambers and kill off thousands of God's lesser creatures.

Of course, PETA spokeshumans say they dispatch the furry four-legged animals in a "humane" fashion. Humane ... like you would, or should, treat humans. The last time we treated humans like that, we called it a holocaust.

PETA got in a bit of trouble for their good work. Seems like some of their killing teams were dumping the lifeless carcasses in private dumpsters and trash cans. Well, can you hardly blame them? How high can you pile up a bunch of dead dogs on the back of a pick-up truck and still have room for a gas chamber.

Speaking of PETA. They have this promotional campaign where activists go naked in public with the claim that they would rather their bare skin that some animals skin. I first wonder why lunatic fringe liberals always seem to think going naked is an effective means of protest for everything from wars to Oreo cookies. (Personally, I think nakedness and Oreo cookies has some real possibilities ... but my thoughts are definitely of civil disobedience.)

I would also suggest to the hard-core PETA activists, "You look much better in a nice floor-length mink than you do in your wrinkled, sagging human skin. They only prove that au naturale can be au nauseous. Naked animal activist, except for the hopelessly blond movie star types, give me doubts about the perfection of God. Putting a naked Pam Anderson next to a bare-it-all PETA regular is just another version of Beauty and the Beast.